I like movies where people are thinking, planning, and executing or searching for answers. This includes planning heists (Oceans Eleven series), breaking out of prison (The Shawshank Redemption), winning sports games (Invictus, Moneyball), flying rockets (Apollo 13, Hidden Figures, The Martian), practicing martial arts (The Karate Kid), breaking a news story (All The Presidents Men, Spotlight), winning court cases (Anatomy of a Murder, Erin Brockovich, The Rainmaker), and solving crimes (all detective and crime movies that fit the bill). I think this is also why I cannot relate to characters who refuse to do anything constructive in the face of adversity. Normally, this could be a problem for a film critic but there are no editors here so I can get away with it. In fact, this website is very much like the underground lair of Dr. Evil where I can write whatever I want, whenever I want. As a proof, here is an image of a shark with a frickin’ laser beam attached to its head.
No editor within a radius of 4.2 light-years would have allowed that. (I have heard good things about editors on the Alpha Centauri system.)
That’s the reason why I have watched Where Eagles Dare countless times. I love the little tricks and stratagems employed throughout the movie. But my absolute favourite WWII movie from the sixties is the 1962 movie The Longest Day. Notice how different the characters are that Richard Burton plays in these two movies. In The Longest Day he is a fatigued pilot who has just watched his best friend take his final dive in the depths of the English Channel. In Where Eagles Dare, he is the most dangerous double agent in Europe who is said to have “a seventh, eighth and ninth [sense] and a built-in radar set for danger”, à la James Bond.
I saw The Guns of Navarone in a theatre when I was a kid. My English was not good enough at the time to understand the intricacies of the plot but I do remember the thrilling climb to the top of the steep cliff and the guns getting blown up in the end. I did not watch the movie again until recently and when I did, it was a pleasant surprise. The story was much more nuanced than I expected and while watching the movie I inadvertently began comparing it with Where Eagles Dare.
On the face of it, both stories are similar. No surprises there as they have both been penned by Alistair MacLean. A group of daredevils from the Allied camp attempts a seemingly impossible rescue/destroy mission in an impenetrable German-occupied territory. Both movies have a powerful mission leader who is aided by a second-in-command of a different nationality. Both movies reveal a surprise traitor in second half and both movies have two women characters assisting the group. And yet, there are important differences.
Where Eagles Dare is an entertainment movie through and through. The Guns of Navarone entertains as well but it goes deeper and makes us think about the absurdity of war.
Given that Alistair MacLean wrote both these stories, why this difference? There was only one way to find out – read both the books. When I decided to do that, I realised why I refuse to do a routine 9-to-5 job. It’s because I can drop everything on a whim to read two books back to back to find answers to questions that maybe ten people in this world would be interested in.
Meanwhile, in the 42/9th dimension, my ancestors bellow with rage. The 42/9th dimension is reserved for the souls of your ancestors where they watch your every move. You are under 24/7 surveillance and judged constantly for every action. It’s like celebrating Festivus 365 days a year. In my dreams, my ancestors tell me exactly how I have disappointed them. Their comments make the Shark Tank judges’ feedback look like flowery compliments.
Grandfather1.1: He’s a lazy bum, LOL! Grandmother1.1: ??
Grandfather1.1: He wants to find his Ikigai..some Japanese fad, SMH!
Grandmother1.1: The Japanese have brainwashed my poor boy. Isn’t the war over yet?
Grandfather1.1: LMAO!
Grandfather14.1: Teach him to ride a horse. Horse riding solves every problem.
Grandfather233.1: What crops is he growing? He should grow rice or wheat but no barley.
Grandmother647.1: Can he hunt a deer?
Grandfather522.1: Can he hunt a rabbit at least?
Grandmother379.1: Leave him in the jungle for one summer and one winter. He will learn.
Grandfather1.1: No, he won’t! He will die of hunger or get eaten by a lion and join us here, ROFL! Grandfather233.1: Millet! Now there’s a good crop! Grandfather14.1: Start with a pony. When you have mastered riding a pony, then you practice on a horse. Grandfather1649.1: Hünggœga wøggæ ‘Japanese’? Hünggœga wøggæ ‘horse’? Hünggœga wøggæ ‘wabbit’?
Grandfather1649.1 is a Neanderthal. While moderators of the 42/9th dimension do their best to keep all the ancestors up-to-date by providing classes, things have been tough for Grandfather1649.1. He refuses to believe that the Earth is not flat. Double digit prime numbers give him nightmares and he wakes up with hiccups. Meanwhile, Grandfather1.1 is delighted with the internet and uses all the acronyms generously every chance he gets, LOL!
So I read both the books, one after the other and it was such a revealing experience that I am glad I did it. The Guns of Navarone was made in 1961, based on the novel of the same name by MacLean. Carl Foreman, who was also the producer, adapted the book for screen. As for Where Eagles Dare made in 1968, MacLean wrote both the screenplay and the novel at the same time. This is clear when you read the novel, it’s almost a verbatim copy of the script, barring a few changes that were probably made by the production team. For instance in the novel, Maj. John Smith (Richard Burton) and Lt. Schaffer (Clint Eastwood) are chased by a tanker. Reminded me of the famous tanker chase in Golden Eye.
In Where Eagles Dare book, a romantic relationship develops between Lt. Schaffer and Heidi Schmidt (Ingrid Pitt); this was not explored in the movie. In The Guns of Navarone movie, a backstory exists between Captain Mallory (Gregory Peck) and Colonel Andrea Stavros (Anthony Quinn) as a result of which Andrea is waiting for a chance to kill Mallory; the book does not have this backstory.
But these are minor differences. The crucial difference between the two movies is represented by the character of Corporal John Miller (David Niven). Miller is always confronting Mallory with questions that do not have clear cut answers.
The first encounter occurs when Mallory deliberately feeds wrong information to Major Roy Franklin (Anthony Quale) who is injured. Mallory leaves him to be captured by the Germans in the hope that he will give the wrong information to the Germans when questioned. Miller accuses Mallory of using Franklin to which Mallory responds that he did it to get the job done. Miller says,
I have been on a hundred jobs and not one of them has altered the course of the war.
Is Mallory right in using one man in order to save the 1200 men marooned on the Kheros island? Do the needs of the many outweigh needs of the few? Back in the days when Star Trek movies were not about beating the aliens to a pulp with free boxing skills, Spock asked the same question in the 1982 movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
The second encounter between the two is even more thought provoking. Anna (Gia Scala) is a spy and is caught. Miller challenges Mallory to shoot her because not doing so would jeopardise the mission. They argue about who is responsible and Miller says,
I am beginning to wonder who really is responsible when it comes to the dirty work. Who really is guilty, the man who gives the order, or the one who has to do it with his own hands.
This raises fundamental questions about the responsibility of war. How high can you go up the chain of command to find the responsible person? Is the responsibility shared throughout the chain or does it rest at the top?
These two scenes raise the level of The Guns of Navarone from a straightforward action thriller to a thought provoking drama that pauses the action to confront these deep questions that would stump even the greatest of philosophers. And the credit for this must go to Carl Foreman who adapted the screenplay.
Lest you think that this is in any way a criticism of MacLean, let me put your mind to rest. MacLean is a master storyteller. Even though I knew the plots of both novels, he kept me on the edge till the last page. His mastery over plot twists is phenomenal. Writer Algis Budrys described his writing style as,
hit ‘em with everything but the kitchen sink, then give ‘em the sink, and when they raise their heads, drop the plumber on ‘em.
Moreover, in The Guns of Navarone novel, MacLean takes some time to describe the childhood of Lt. Andrew Stevens whose symptoms could indicate anything from a panic attack to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); the latter did not exist back then because everything was swept under the umbrella term “shell shock.” While this was not shown in the movie, it makes the novel much more than a simple action thriller. While Foreman’s contribution is significant, he could not have done it without the solid base story provided by MacLean.
War is one subject that presents the storyteller – writer or filmmaker – with myriad of possibilities. Heroic, brave, tragic, sad, and absurdly comic – war has a story for every genre. As far as action thrillers are concerned, WWII has spawned far too many compared to WWI because WWII happened over a much larger canvas at many locations.
Recent years have seen some amazing movies on WWI – 1917 with no cuts so that the whole war feels like one long shot and All Quiet on the Western Front, a remarkable story told from the German point of view.
One of the greatest works of literature on WWI is Booker winner Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy. The three novels go deep into psychological and social aspects of war, focusing on the shell shocked soldiers Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen and their psychiatrist W. H. R. Rivers. On the battlefield, Pat Barker relies on external parameters like lights, sounds, smells, and tastes to portray the battle. Reading it feels like watching the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan.
Pat Barker also explores the profound effects of WWI on social lives of people back home. Take Lizzy for instance, whose husband has been drafted. He used beat her regularly so when the war broke out and he was sent to the frontline, Lizzy breathed a sigh a relief. She says, “On August 4, 1914.. peace broke out.”
Regeneration was made into a movie which I have not seen, but the trilogy deserves an extended series.
As for satires on war, no work can come close to Joseph Heller’s Catch-22. I remember reading the book for the first time,I laughed so hard for so long that I got stomach cramps. The scene of the court martial of Clevinger or the backstory of Major Major Major Major are beyond hilarious.
Catch-22 takes the established ideas like nations, wars, capitalism etc. and stretches them beyond their limit. It is incredibly funny and yet poignant. One of my favourite passages from the book is the explanation of the Catch-22 clause. This book is such a rare work of genius that even Joseph Heller himself could not manage to repeat it in his lifetime.
Amazing book. And a great series based on it starring George Clooney and Hugh Laurie.
